|
| |
|
PLEASE HELP! Although our site is very popular, the current economic climate has reduced our revenues just when we need extra security to prevent attacks from hackers who don't like what we do. If you think what we do is worthwhile, please
donate or
become a member. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSIGNED NUMBERS |
|
|
Unlike the MPAA we do not assign one inscrutable rating based on age, but 3 objective ratings for SEX/NUDITY, VIOLENCE/GORE and PROFANITY on a scale of 0 to 10, from lowest to highest, depending on quantity and context. |
|
[more »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Hanks stars as Forrest Gump, a perceptive simpleton
who's been involved, in one way or another, with every major event of recent American
history.
SEX/NUDITY 4 - Sex noises coming from a bedroom window, while a child
listens. A couple is shown kissing in bed and there is the suggestion of sex. A woman is
shown in her underwear; she removes her bra and we see her bare back as she places a man's
hand on her breast. A nude woman is shown covered only by a guitar; we see the side of her
bare chest. A man's bottom is shown bandaged. Several men are seen bare to the waist, and
a flash of bare bottoms in the distance.
VIOLENCE/GORE 4 - A newsreel of George Wallace getting shot, and references
to John and Bobby Kennedy being killed. Young boys throw rocks at another boy and hit him
in the head. There is the insinuation of sexual child abuse. There are several fist fights
which end in bloody noses, and a woman is slapped in the face and knocked down. War scenes
from Vietnam show men being wounded and blown up: a large bloody gut wound, and a leg
wound are shown graphically.
PROFANITY 5 - One F-word and several scatological and anatomical terms are
used, as well as insults and derogatory racial references. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Drug use, destiny, child abuse, the meaning of existence.
MESSAGE - Life is made out of distinct moments. We supply the larger
context.
|
|
Special Keywords: S4 - V4 - P5 - MPAAPG-13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A CAVEAT: We've gone through several editorial changes since we started covering films in 1992 and some of our early standards were not as stringent as they are now. We therefore need to revisit many older reviews, especially those written prior to 1998 or so; please keep this in mind if you're consulting a review from that period. While we plan to revisit and correct older reviews our resources are limited and it is a slow, time-consuming process. |
|
|
|
|